clear photos

[soverenstaff]

hi i am new here and i hope you can help me, i have a Nikon D90 with 2 lens and no matter how i try i take 300 + photos and get about 30 clear ones, and i dont get it, this is an example the photo is just not as clear as i would like

 

[Benco]

The dogs faces are a little out of focus and there's some motion blur on the pups paw. When you say 'not clear' is that what you mean?

 

[weepete]

It looks to me like your shutter speed wasn't fast enough, though I can't see the exif data. What settings did you use for this pic?

 

[Benco]

It looks to me like your shutter speed wasn't fast enough, though I can't see the exif data. What settings did you use for this pic?

Camera Maker: NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model: NIKON D90
Image Date: 2013-02-23 20:14:21 (no TZ)
Focal Length: 300.0mm (35mm equivalent: 450mm)
Aperture: f/5.6
Exposure Time: 0.0080 s (1/125)
ISO equiv: 800
Exposure Bias: none
Metering Mode: Matrix
White Balance: Auto
Flash Fired: No (enforced)
Orientation: Normal
Color Space: sRGB
GPS Coordinate: undefined, undefined
Software: Ver.1.00

On the strength of that I'd say it's because you were shooting at max focal length with aperture as wide as possible. Are a lot of your unsatisfactory photos taken with your lens set like that?

 

[weepete]

Cheers Benco, looks like my exif viewer is guff!

1/125th is a bit slow at 300mm by my reckoning. Going back to the rule of thub of 1/focal distance to prevent blur from camera shake should the op not be using around 1/500th of a sec here?

 

[480sparky]

I think that kit lens is softest at 300mm to begin with.

 

[slow231]

i can see portions of both dog's bodies and patches of grass that are significantly sharper than the faces, and these areas look to span the plane of the pup's face. i'd say the DOF, camera hold, and lens sharpness was adaquate (enough to produce the sharper regions at least). i'd say motion blur. dogs can fidget around quite a bit.

 

[TheLost]

Welcome to the forum!! Love the dogs BTW!!

Here are a couple of things to help capture those puppies:

1) Keep your shutter speed above your focal length. In your example you had your lens maxed out @ 300mm. That means your shutter speed needs to be at least 300 or above. The actual rule is " 1/focal length = shutter speed"... but its easier to just say "if you shoot at 200mm... make sure your shutter is higher then 200".

2) Know your glass! Most lenses are weakest at their max range and their minimum aperture. Lets assume your 55-300mm or 70-300mm only opens to f/5.6.. If you shoot @ 300mm and f/5.6 don't expect the best image your system can give... Something like 200mm and f/8 will give you a sharper image. You need to spend some hefty cash ($$$) to get a better zoom.. or...

3) Use a prime! Prime lenses are the best way to get a super sharp image. The 35mm f/1.8 and 50mm f/1.8 are also inexpensive (your D90 can drive the awesome Nikon 50mm 1.8D that can be found for under $100 used). I think you'd be surprised if you retook that picture with a 50mm.

Dogs are hard to shoot... the damn things never hold still!

 

[Rafterman]

Cheers Benco, looks like my exif viewer is guff!

Quick tip: if using Windows, save the image to your desktop. Right-click the icon and choose "Properties." Click the "Details" tab and scroll down to the "Camera" section. All the image info will be there, if available.

On topic: I'd agree w/the others that your shutter speed was probably not fast enough. 1/125th is sort of slow for fast-moving animals like puppies at that zoom range. I also agree with the suggestion to retake the photo with a fast 50 or 85mm lens. A little rhyme: that pic will turn out great when you use f-stop 2.8!

 

[weepete]

Cheers Rafterman, I'm on my phone though so use a 3rd party exif viewer, it's a bit tempremental though!

 

[KmH]

Quick tip: if using Windows, save the image to your desktop. Right-click the icon and choose "Properties." Click the "Details" tab and scroll down to the "Camera" section. All the image info will be there, if available.

Some of the image/camera info will be there, but nowhere near as much as an EXIF reader can display.

The posted image looks like it was shot with the camera on or near the ground, like the photographer was laying down using their elbows and body like a tripod.
1/125 is still kind of slow a a shutter speed for 300 mm of focal length.

Also if the lens/camera has image stabilization (IS/VR) IS should be turned off if the camera is on a stable mount, like on the ground, laying down using elbows and body like a tripod, or on a tripod.

 

[Rafterman]

Some of the image/camera info will be there, but nowhere near as much as an EXIF reader can display.

I agree, but if all I need is just very basic data (focal length, aperture, ISO, etc.) it's much easier/faster for me to right-click > view properties than it is to fire up Photoshop or Lightroom, open the image, then view EXIF data that way. In the end, we both accomplish the same task.

 

[Benco]

Some of the image/camera info will be there, but nowhere near as much as an EXIF reader can display.

I agree, but if all I need is just very basic data (focal length, aperture, ISO, etc.) it's much easier/faster for me to right-click > view properties than it is to fire up Photoshop or Lightroom, open the image, then view EXIF data that way. In the end, we both accomplish the same task.

I use an EXIF reader add on for Firefox, you don't even need to download the image. :mrgreen:

 

[Vautrin]

do you understand depth of field? do you know how to sharpen in post? have you tried using a flash?

those three questions will help you improve your photos

understanding dof will let you get sharper photos (try f11 or f8 -- f22 will be softer, do you know why?)

most photos benefit from some sharpening in post

lastly, i you use flash the action will freeze at 1/1000 a second (or whatever a flash fires at)

and with that last point: subject matters. dogs and babies will freak if flashed

 

[Buckster]

Some of the image/camera info will be there, but nowhere near as much as an EXIF reader can display.

I agree, but if all I need is just very basic data (focal length, aperture, ISO, etc.) it's much easier/faster for me to right-click > view properties than it is to fire up Photoshop or Lightroom, open the image, then view EXIF data that way. In the end, we both accomplish the same task.

I use an EXIF reader add on for Firefox, you don't even need to download the image. :mrgreen:

^This. There are comprehensive EXIF readers for every browser out there. No DL'ing the photo or dragging it to desktop or opening another program necessary. Nothing could be easier.

As for the photo, it looks to me like there's a point of focus in the grass that's just fine. Adjust aperture from f/5.6 to get more DOF, and it should be good.

Also, what post-processing sharpening methods are being used? Is it the last step, after re-sizing?